MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3103100888 · doi:10.1002/adma.202003722

Moisture‐Enabled Electricity Generation: From Physics and Materials to Self‐Powered Applications

2020· review· en· W3103100888 on OpenAlexafffund
Daozhi Shen, W. W. Duley, Peng Peng, Ming Xiao, Jiayun Feng, Lei Liu, Guisheng Zou, Y. Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Materials · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicSolar-Powered Water Purification Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMoistureMaterials scienceNanotechnologyElectricityGrapheneProcess engineeringEnergy storageElectricity generationElectronicsEnvironmental scienceElectrical engineeringPower (physics)EngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The exploration of the utilization of sustainable, green energy represents one way in which it is possible to ameliorate the growing threat of the global environmental issues and the crisis in energy. Moisture, which is ubiquitous on Earth, contains a vast reservoir of low-grade energy in the form of gaseous water molecules and water droplets. It has now been found that a number of functionalized materials can generate electricity directly from their interaction with moisture. This suggests that electrical energy can be harvested from atmospheric moisture and enables the creation of a new range of self-powered devices. Herein, the basic mechanisms of moisture-induced electricity generation are discussed, the recent advances in materials (including carbon nanoparticles, graphene materials, metal oxide nanomaterials, biofibers, and polymers) for harvesting electrical energy from moisture are summarized, and some strategies for improving energy conversion efficiency and output power in these devices are provided. The potential applications of moisture electrical generators in self-powered electronics, healthcare, security, information storage, artificial intelligence, and Internet-of-things are also discussed. Some remaining challenges are also considered, together with a number of suggestions for potential new developments of this emerging technology.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations410
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced MaterialsSame topicSolar-Powered Water Purification MethodsFrench-language works237,207